Today

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

  1. Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571

    [1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels – there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.

  2. Brooks (Re) 2013 CanLII 64073 (ON RC)

    12. Seize the Day Industries, Goldfinger Enterprises and VAE LLC therefore agree to pay (i) $15,000 each ($45,000 total) to the ORC as fines for violating the principle of Rule 6.13.03(ii) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing; and (ii) $10,000 each ($30,000 total) to the ORC as costs to the ORC Administration for investigative, legal and related expenses pursuant to 18(3) of the Racing Commission Act, 2000.

  3. Cuthbertson v. Rasouli 2013 SCC 53

    [1] This case presents us with a tragic yet increasingly common conflict. A patient is unconscious. He is on life support — support that may keep him alive for a very long time, given the resources of modern medicine. His physicians, who see no prospect of recovery and only a long progression of complications as his body deteriorates, wish to withdraw life support. His wife, believing that he would wish to be kept alive, opposes withdrawal of life support. How should the impasse be resolved?

The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. Lalonde 2008 QCCQ 3614

[1] Une minute à peine après que le propriétaire du commerce eut quitté les lieux, un violent incendie éclate dans le marché d’alimentation Richelieu de Cantley, en ce 10 janvier 2000.
[2] Monsieur Denis Lalonde, qui opère alors ce commerce, subit depuis près de quatre ans son procès sous trois chefs d’accusation: avoir intentionnellement causé par le feu un dommage à un bâtiment et à son contenu, et ce sans se soucier que le bâtiment soit occupé ou non (art. 433 a) C.cr.); avoir intentionnellement causé par le feu un dommage à un bien qui ne lui appartient pas en entier, propriété de Siegfried Sattlecker et Diane Gareau (art. 434 C.cr.); et finalement avoir, avec l’intention de frauder Assurances générales des Caisses Desjardins, causé par le feu un dommage à un bâtiment et à son contenu (art. 435(1) C.cr.).

Comments are closed.